AMD to deliver three-, four-way CrossFire

AMD to deliver three-, four-way CrossFire

VR-Zone reports that AMD is cooking up a new technology called 'CrossFire X' that will enable CrossFire configurations with three and even four graphics cards. The site has posted two logos as proof: one reads, "ATI CrossFire X Technology," and the other, "ATI CrossFire X Certified." Indeed, considering the motherboard and power requirements for three- or four-way multi-GPU setups, a CrossFire X certification would make sense. Logos aside, VR-Zone also quotes performance scaling information for CrossFire X. Supposedly, three-way setups will offer 2.6 times the performance of a single card, while the site quotes a mysterious "3.(?)x" figure for four-way setups.

http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/AT [...] /5342.html

AMD revealed the performance scaling for Crossfire X as below :

1 GPU = 1 x performance
2 GPU = 1.8x performance
3 GPU = 2.6x performance
4 GPU = 3.(?)x performance

i just cant imagine someone buying 4 cards maybe for crysis

what would be good is if i could put my old cards in as i upgraded each year just for a little extra power.

yes i saw ...............

http://news.expreview.com/2007-10- [...] d3900.html

http://vr-zone.com/articles/Nvidia [...] /5341.html

I understand the need for stronger/better graphics. But this is just getting out of hand. We need improving on graphics technology...Not slapping 2-4 of them together which is just a ridiculous amount of money. Don't get me wrong though. It does have great benefits as they keep getting better on the performance scaling...But still....This is not the route. at least with CPU's they are multicore....this multicard solution just breaks the wallet and is getting ridiculous with these 2-4 card solutions....and don't even get me started on the power withdraws...::sighs::...

Graphics technology does need to improve...but this is certainly not the way to go...Don't get me wrong though. It's difficult to push the technology further..But the route they are taking just doesn't seem to be the right road...We need more efficient solutions in terms of power draw and performance...not insane setups with 4 graphics card that eat up a insane amount of power...As well as not offering good results since most games/applications can't benefit or scale efficiently....

Now that i have jumped ship like so many of us to Pentium "quad core from AMD's I just want SLI for my 775 system. Nothing compares to the power that we have with the 775 C2D or C2Q systems'. I have 1-8800GTS and if I could put another one in SLI config this would be a heck of a Crysis system. Even with just one you should see how it play's COD-4 or MOH-Airborne it's just a heck of a nice system. Im just worried about how it's going to do with Crysis ? BA

this could be a more power efficient way to go for running the folding@home gpu client, if someone did purchase 3 or 4. running one client on each gpu, instead of requiring multiple pcs for identical performance

just my 2 cents

Regarding the processor and gpu cores (Fusion for amd)...It will be interesting but it won't replace graphics cards. It's laughable to think they can outperform stand alone solutions. AMD's Fusion and the entire idea based on implementing a gpu core with a cpu core on one package is being done for a few reasons. One, for performance per watt....Two, for mobile solutions as well in terms of power draw...Three, Better performance compared to the onboard video solutions...

It also has benefits to have both running parallel as they don't run through the northbridge...but communicate directly with one another. There are other benefits also but don't feel like getting into it at 5:28 am...about to sleep...But it's quite a engineering feat....But it's not going to be replacing stand alone graphics cards for a VERY long time....Think about it..If that was the case...Nvidia would be panicking like crazy right now...

Fusion = low/mid end solution in terms of performance per watt.

This is also why I stated there needs to be a better advancement in graphical technology...As imo slapping 2-4 cards together really isn't an "affordable" solution in terms of cost for the hardware...as well as energy efficiency...

I agree with Kamrooz to a point. It will be awhile before CPU/GPUs take over cards, but I think within 5 yrs or so they will. I think they could do better with direct comm between the cpu and gpu it only makes sense that it would. I bet Nvidia is pooing there pants right now looking at the future. AMD bought ATI for a reason. They are looking towards the future. Look at where CPU tech is going. More co-processors and cores. Why wouldn't they have specialized cores for specific tasks all communicating directly?

How fast do you think a 12 core ( 8cpu 4gpu) proc would run, especially in 3 to 5 yrs when everything is optimised for multi thread.

My prediction is ATI will start making multi GPU-cpu chips that will kick the crap out of anything Nvidia will be able to do from a card, Nvidia will start the bleeding process (much like amd now) and become weaked as a company, and then Itel will step in and buy Nvidia and start competing with AMD/Ati. This is all possible if AMD can survive long enough.

I just don't like it that we are being milked for all the money they can get out of us when they know they can do better now. But I know they have a biz to run.